MSC

I think you misunderstand how Maslow's hierarchy works; it isn't a top down priority structure, it's an order of supervenience wherein foundationary access to our needs is what enables further access to the upper levels. Put simply, you can't climb a pyramid by starting at the top. If you don't have access to water, food, warmth and oxygen, you die, and the rest of the needs you have and access to them, dies with you. A much simpler way of interpreting the hierarchy of needs, is just to look at the scale of the sections, not where they are from top to bottom, just the scale. The bigger the section, the greater the need. This turns it into more of a scale of whether or not something is a true need or borders on practically being a want. The context of the hierarchy itself is that it is supposed to be a description of what a human needs in order to feel like it is or has led a good and fulfilling life. The baseline foundation of that is simply a life where you have had steady access to food, water, clean air and shelter without worry of scarcity, if you had that, chances are you were able to have the opportunites to achieve access to the upper levels of our needs, which again are physiologically not as important as the lower levels upon which the entire pyramid rests. It doesn't matter how much self actualisation you can do, it will always come back to the foundational needs.

Most likely you're correct, although in order to derail it after this they'll have to come out and define "official" acts themselves in response to the inevitable Trump appeal and they'll punt that as far back as they can. Although if Trump loses and Democrats win enough congressional and Senate seats, maybe Roberts will try to desperately claw back some perceived integrity by throwing Trump under the bus. There is also the double edged sword that if they go to far in immunizing the presidency, a democratic president could theoretically legally intervene in any future election and deny Republicans a win for as long as it takes for a new court to re-address the issue.

I know, I loved that too. Took the presidential immunity strawman made by this Scotus and steelmanned the crap out of it. Expertly done. I'd also add that candidates have judicial recourse (where the judiciary checked the executives branches power by finding no credible evidence of fraud in the 2020 election) and therefore no incumbent president has any official duties in respect to an election campaign they are running in. It's like they tried to tie Smiths hands behind his back and he just immediately snapped the bindings. I've got the full filing downloaded and ready to read on Friday during my day off.

Yeah these are the types that I see conducting the actual shooting and bomb threats, but as a percentage of MAGA they make up what like 5-10%? I think if Harris wins, pitting those militias against law enforcement and the national guard, I think they'll still get their asses handed to them in the end, but who knows how much damage they may do before that or what might happen if they go further underground. It's less the militia I worry about but major financers. Elon Musk could pay for a 100k strong mercenary army for well over a decade or could outfit and supply these militia groups to be far more effective and dangerous. One thing to keep in mind about MAGA though, is that it isn't uniform extremism, it's a mixed bag of crazy that is ripe for it's own infighting over how extreme they really are. One militia group may not have the same motivations or grievances as another. One group may claim to be all about protecting the second amendment while another has fever dreams of a handmaids tale being made reality. Even when it comes down to in-group culture, MAGA has a problem with leadership, in that who gets to be in charge or higher up on a hierarchy, is determined by backstabbing and usurpation. Same problem the Sith have really. This isn't to diminish or play down the threat of this happening, just trying to point out reasons to remain hopeful that whatever happens, we'll overcome it. Still important things to think about and the court battles are sure to be messier than they were in 2020 all on their own. Really worried the supreme Court will be looking for any excuse to intervene and give the election to Trump.

It's already messier tbh; assassination attempts, bomb threats, the rhetoric is getting darker and the Trump side is getting more desperate and more deluded. I've just been operating under the assumption that America is in a cold civil war that will heat up to Irish troubles style terroristic warfare, on an American scale. Ironically enough most red and purple states are more likely to end up with intense infighting due to strong democrat support in densely populated areas. Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, El Paso, they are all blue dots in a "sea of red" that is a sea only in landmass, not of people, in Texas. A lot of those Democrats are 2nd amendment touting Democrats too so it's not so cut and dry that one side is better armed than the other. Honestly though, it's going to take a lot of monkey see monkey do for enough Trump supporters to get off their asses, drop the dunkins, hop into their mobility scooters and roll off to a civil war in some regimented way that even resembles military organization.

Starting to seem more like an election month than an election day with all the early voting taking place. Also there are numerous democratic legal challenges to many last minute rule changes made by pro-trump election commissions and officials so at least the trump sides efforts aren't going to go unfought. This is going to be a long October and things can only heat up. 😕

True, let me rephrase, swing state voters will be ready to vote for a women before voting for a guy with eyeliner; by that I mean superficial voters who care more about perceived masculinity would rather vote for a strong woman than a feminine seeming man. This isn't to say that I myself see these traits as masculine or feminine or care about who is or isn't masculine; just an observation that a lot of voters have certain biases, conscious and subconscious, which impacts how they perceive candidates. For example Harris unlike Clinton is very good at immasculating Trump and making him seem even more like the whiny child he is as opposed to a grown man. Seriously only a black woman could be like "oh yeah go to his little rallies, see for yourself how quickly people get bored and leave!"

Like I said, shrewd, to put it mildly. Unethically sophisticated. That being said, I think America will sooner vote for a woman than a guy wearing eyeliner, who's side piece moonlights as an IKEA display piece. Honestly though, I don't think I'll ever quite understand why Vance was pegged for VP in the first place. He used to be anti-trump, pretty openly. I'd have thought Trump would have wanted someone that supported him from day one of his first campaign announcement.

Okay I'm just going to say it; that debate, was pretty fucking weird! Strangely polite and pleasant, almost seemed like JD was trying not to see Wallz as a father figure half the time and that Wallz was seeing JD as a lost kid in need of guidance. That said, I personally believe Vance has strapped himself to the rogue comet that is the trump campaign, not because he expects Trump to win, but because he's planning his own 2028/32 run. If Trump does win, I can potentially foresee and attempt by Vance to use the 25th amendment and I honestly don't know which is worse, Trump or Vance as president. If Vance continues with Trumpism and doesn't try to bring the party more to the center, his intelligence and age could make him a very different kind of threat than Trump. I definitely would not underestimate him after this. One thing I think is pretty clear though, 3 of the people in this race are far more intelligent and in Vances case, shrewder, than the 4th. Trump is the odd one out. The tones of the debates couldn't be more different.

I think part of what makes some men so hyper vigilant towards misandry is in large part due to the paranoia that comes with being in the advantaged situation unfairly. I mean sure you have real misandrists, but there is a distinct difference between a misandrist saying "all men are pigs" vs a woman saying "men are disgusting when they behave like this." Now as to ambiguity in wage differences, as I can name a few career paths where women can make more than men; there is far less ambiguity when it comes to a wealth gap. As it stands, on average, for every dollar of wealth that a man owns, women own substantially less and we can't ignore how a long history of male dominated capitalism has exacerbated and solidified wealth inequalities. From healthcare, clothing, hygiene etc, women pay more to live, are less likely to own property or receive capital funding for their business ventures. Due to ingrained biases surrounding how we identify job roles with either masculine or feminine (even though those jobs themselves have nothing to do with gender), women are more likely to be passed over for leadership roles. As someone who has been a caregiver, as a man, I've definitely come across an assumption that I must be a less effective caregiver than a women, while simultaneously acknowledging myself that there are many women far better suited to leadership roles than myself. Although it's interesting when you look at traditional gender roles and leadership roles in their full context. Take a general, identify what the ins and outs of his job are, then tell me if his role is more paternal or maternal. I personally notice more of similarity between the maternal role and leadership than I do with the paternal role. I mean think about it. "Go out and win us some bread, here are your clothes and equipment, here is some lunch, be careful out there." "At once... Sweetie"

I did find the timing of the letter kind of strange and the phrasing. It would make more sense if there were two letters, one meant to be shared if successful and one for failure?

Tech advancement in the entertainment industry isn't like tech advancement in other industries, because you have to cater to an audience. What this means for AI in film and tv, is that there will always be movies and tv shows that use real actors and actresses because there will always be an audience for it. How things are marketed may change slightly, you may see studios that development purely AI portrayed narratives and some that never use it, then you'll have studios that combine elements of both, saving money on extras while keeping real actors in for the crowds they draw. Each of these studio types are going to be mindful of their audience types. There will also be times where AI will potentially be able to save the planned narrative of a show. Exhibit A: Helen Mcrory, playing Aunt Polly in Peaky Blinders, died before the 6th season and death caused the trajectory of the shows narrative to change out of necessity. There will come a time when it may be possible for AI to continue an actors path after death or other instances that may warrant an AI replacement. There will also probably be many different forms of AI and ways it can go about being involved in a movie or tv show. You'll have AIs able to either generate complete cinematography and all the characters and you'll have AIs who are avatars of individual characters in mixed cast sets. There will be an audience who loves AI movies and others who prefer real actors and some who don't mind either way so long as what they are waching is entertaining. You're absolutely going to have studios that overuse AI just to cut costs and not have to pay actors, but what you'll probablu find is that the creators of these AI are going to demand a piece of the pie the actors would normally get and since it's the entertainment industry they are going to want pay levels near what actors themselves expect. When actors themselves go up in arms over AI stealing their jobs, that will be around the time where a savy studio will realise it can make it's mark as the studio of traditional acting and cater to the audience that demands that.

Yeah I saw that about teamsters. Can't believe so many of it's members are Trump supporters, talk about kissing the hand that will beat you... The latest quinnipac(probably spelled incorrectly) poll shows Harris quite a bit ahead in Pennsylvania, and narrowly ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan. I wonder what the betting odds are for The fat man having a heart attack or something before the election are? Honestly that would feel like a dream!

Yeah I had heard about this. Was hoping George W Bush himself was going to give his endorsement but I guess for an ex Republican president, not endorsing the GOP candidate says a lot on it's own. There is also a data scientist who has accurately predicted not just presidential races but Senate ones too, using betting data instead of survey polls, odd setters phrasing questions like "who do you believe will win?" Instead of "who do you want to win?" And the reliability of constantly updated odds data 24/7 through this guys methods, predicts a landslide for Harris coming.

If someone throws a rock at your head, you don't typically blame the rock.

At first I thought this was going to be about how there is no scientific evidence of a conspiracy in things like flat earth beliefs so they aren't theories but hypotheses. If the post had been about that, I'd have said "yeah, completely overused." But now I'm not really sure how OP is defining these terms.

Great summary! Thanks for sharing! It should be noted also that it is thought that rated choice voting would also have the benefit of encouraging civil campaigns and it avoids pivotal voter issues in RCV, rooted in mathematics, that can potentially still lead to minority rule or unfavourable candidates still winning elections without having a majority first choice position. Unfortunately though, public awareness of the choices is about 70 years behind the academic literature on this, as reflected in that RCV has not got many real world examples and SV has even less. There is also the massive hurdle of maintaining trust in elections while switching to a new style of voting. Particularly voting types that are more complex than first past the post. Lay people gravitate toward simplicity and in trying to convince others to switch, you also have to convince them they've been doing it wrong for a long time. In a 2 party dominated system this difficulty is increased as at any one time close to half of the electorate will have gotten their way in the last election anyway and so will see less need for change. Something that could at least blunt the effects of the electoral college though, sooner rather than later, is the national popular vote interstate compact (NPVIC). A number of states have currently already signed on to this, but if enough of them did, the EC would become completely toothless. This is a pact between states to award all of their electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote in all 50 states.

Ranked choice voting and rated choice voting aren't the same thing. Ranked choice is better than fptp but rated choice is allegedly better than ranked choice, if I understand the theory correctly as it avoids specific problems that can arise in rated choice and fptp. This video explains the differences, just have some coffee beforehand as it gets complicated when it starts to explain the pitfalls of the different voting systems!

A little birdie told me they didn't even have an eagle eye view of the perimeter... The least he could have done (TFG) is have more than one type of stroke that day...

Now that distinction between success and attempts is very much not picked up on enough it seems, because this is the first time I've seen that claim. Thanks for the explanation, I was quite unaware.

Oh wow really? Not even on the public schedule? Yup, just makes it sound more and more like the local Florida guy was just out for a wee walk. Elon Musk and others decided to react by encouraging attempts on Biden and Harris. Honestly at this point I don't know who society should be more worried about. Trump or Musk? My money is on Musk. Dude literally has plans resembling evil Daniel Jackson from that one "it was all a dream" episode of Stargate. Satellites in orbit, chips in peoples heads, his dirty hands in so many different infrastructure pies I mean the dude clearly has a snake in his head.... And so does Mr Burns.

I'd argue that it is too soon to be talking about some new form of government when we haven't even figured out how to create equitable voting systems. Looking at you first past the post voting and the electoral college! Rated choice voting is my preference.

Didn't science figure out how procreation even happens? Making it easier for people to procreate due to the knowledge of how it actually works? What is IVF?

Likewise, however the jury is out on the second guy since he never got the chance to fire a shot. Could have been a great marksman for all we know. That said 500 yards with an Ak-47 isn't an easy shot to make. Guy went about it all wrong, without talking about the morality of the action at all, it's implementation practically was so flawed. Shoulda just set a hidden stake pit out on the green of the 7th hole during the night. Honestly I think the only way for it to happen that would leave people more in awe than anger would be for a black star college quarterback to take him out with a football thrown from a ridiculous range. Can't get more American than that! Dear NSA, I'm joking, calm down! Honestly though, it's Florida. Guy could have just been out on a stroll with his pet gun!

Not done reading through everything yet, but this stuck out to me as a bit false. Men are far more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to be the victims of physical violence. In general I don't feel like people are being charitable enough in their interpretation of the OP. It may be that posting in the politics channel has some in an unsuitable mindset to interact with the post. (Although I've now seen things got a little heated in the 2nd page) What I will say to the OP however, is that human health can be broken down into a set of different problems to solve, men and women's health sharing similarities and differences that connect with each other through interaction. Now in terms of researchers and experts, as a species we need them in the fields of mens health, women's health and we still need experts in human health issues that affect both. We have all of that. So I'm assuming the problem OP is trying to address is the frequency at which uninformed and ignorant discussions/debates happen in these areas by laypeople, discussions which do more harm than good because they are expressly for the purposes of acquiring likes, followers, post interaction etc. I don't think OP comes across as an all lives matter advocate or someone who is asking for any sort of priority of one groups issues over another, to me this reads more like the sort of thing you'd read in intersectional feminism literature. @iNow is correct though, equality is very much not present in our society and poopooing the attempts of those who are mainly focused on those who are most trodden upon, by way of having the most issues of inequality, is like trying to repair the smallest hull breaches in a sinking ship as opposed to the ones that are actually huge. I mean you can choose as an individual where you want to focus more and if OP wants to put his time into different areas of discussion as opposed to any kind of men vs women and who is more important type of thing, he can. But that shouldn't have to disrupt a woman advocating for her right to choose or a man advocating for his right to mental healthcare or whatever other issues you can think of that requires it's own advocates. The fight for equality across the board is a war. But each issue is a battle that must be had. Although the ideal is us fixing all of these issues at once, that just isn't really possible. It's a massive problem that really does need to be broken down into smaller parts.